policy interests. if it's good for russia, they are at the table. i think this is a double edged sword. one, it's a great way to solve strife problems across the middle east, but, b, we have to be extremely cautious of setting the table so any agreement or arrangement with the russians also protects u.s., our allies' interests, and i think the assad assad -- you know, look at the tenants of the chemical agreement, great, we have the chemical weapons off, but the russians cleaned up on exactly what they got in the particular deal, and because of that we alienated the allies in the region. that's an important component of it. i'm for getting the deal, but we paid a heavy price to get the deal, and not including allies in the negotiations of the deal. let's continue on syria a bit. you were in the free syria act to provide arms and support to the rebels. when we interviewed back in august, he positively referenced, please to have your cosponsorship, a bipartisan effort, and all this threatened u.s. attack